Miss California's comments

I can't find the link to her contract.

 

Here's the thing. You can't have semi-nude photos, but you can have bikini contests. Isn't that semi-nude? There's a problem with their standards there. The point is that this contest is about promoting being fake. Fake boobs, fake hair and they want fake answers. This is not about being yourself. One of the judges came out and said that she should have answered the way she thought they would want to and not how she really felt. Frankly, getting away from the pagaent and all it's fakery isn't going to be a bad thing for this girl. And anyone that says that this isn't a witch hunt after her - whether she broke the rules or not - is crazy. Are people trying to dig up dirt on other contestants? No. And I doubt they will. It's just a sad situation all around.

 

What does "semi-nude" mean? How much exposure before it is declared "semi-nude"?

 

Semi-nude or partially nude is generally considered to be topless, which would be my expectation of the definitions in the contract. A bikini contest would not be semi-nude.

Not any more than any moral definition. What skin is and is not acceptable to show from the fundamental Muslim differs from the current fundamental Christian. The contract should be fairly specific in that division.

I believe that is what you want it to be, but wanting it to be and it being that are not the same things.

That is your opinion and it is valid for you.

Actually, they do, because such pictures and dirt, as you put it, is more popular durign the period of relative fame. A picture of the second runner up five years ago is not as marketable as ANY of this years contestants, but they are all marketable to an extent.

 

The article does not specify the contractual definition, but topless is the common example which comes to mind. Since the one picture released is topless and was considered to be in violation, that would seem to be the case with this contract.

 

But there was nothing shown in the "topless" picture. The angle prevented anything like a nipple from being shown. It was no worse (or better?) than your average female alien on the old Star Trek series, or in a Sears underwear ad. Her arm was covering anything "questionable".

 

So you don't think pagaents such as this do not promote being fake even though a JUDGE said that she should have presented the answer that the judge's wanted to hear and not her true opinion? You think this is a respectable enterprise after they have come out and said they were "disappointed" in her answer and that she wasn't representing the pagaent well with that answer. They are telling people to give fake answers. That's fakery to me.

 

Which is it Wayne you repeating the wording of contract or you just spewing BS on something you have no clue... see your post 111... are you that dizzy from running in circles that you got disoriented???

 

The ability to see or not see "anything" would not make the picture any less semi-nude than an unclothed picture where "nothing" can be seen is any less nude. What is visible may make the picture more risque or lewd but that does not change the fact it is a partially nude picture. A thin material bikini might leave less to the imagination but there is still clothing involved which does not make it nude or partially nude under the law and contracts are legal based not "what can be seen" based.

 

As has been pointed out previously I am repeating the wording of the contract as indicated in the articles where officials were quoted. You seem to be the only one with the BS spewing. Maybe you can go find someone else to play with while the grown ups have a conversation that makes sense. :mrgreen:

 

Whether the pagent promotes being fake or not is not the issue except as an aside. The woman's statement in the later contest had no bearing on her Miss CA position, which is where the problem with the photos comes in. The huge conspiracy theory that she is being persecuted because of her faith and not because she is not following the contract need much more support than it currently has. The fact she has become involved with the copyright infringement claims will probably be more of a killer for any career in that industry than her personal opinion.

 

What are you spewing here than??? If you were repeating the contract...

 

The contract specifies the nude or semi-nude pictures must be acknoweldged in advance according to the officials quoted but the DEFINITION of those terms was not presented. Do you understand the term may be quoted from a contract reference without the specific legal definition from that contract being known?

 

Do you understand facts.... show them.. you are going by quotes.

 

Does the contract or the pagent define semi nude or is the definition provided in this thread an opinion?

 

I understand quotes of those who are experts are facts. It seems you do not understand that.

 

The information does not state the contractual definition, but it does state the picture already released violates that contract. The information also indicates the unauthorized ad violates the contract. The exact definitions are not provided, but can be generally determined.

 

So, if she were facing the camera and showing a nipple (or two), that would be the same as not showing anything? Are you seriously going to argue that covered is the same as semi nude?

Perhaps she, like I, didn't think the pictures amounted to semi-nude and, so, checked what she felt was the correct box on the form.

 

Yes, in the case of a contract with such a clause, that is exactly the case. Legally a topless photo is the same whether it is from the front, back, side, top, or bottom and regardless of whether anything or everything is visible.

Then when you find out you are wrong you have no problem with being the former Miss California.

 

LOOK QUICK - It may not last long

It may not last long

Nude or semi-nude? You decide.

For me if they traipse around on stage in bikinis this is NOTHING.


http://thedirty.com/2009/05/05/exclusive-image-miss-california-carrie-prejean-exposed/